zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Inactivity Standards
So, recently, as you've all probably noticed, we've had inactive admins and rollbackers. Basically, I know it's a two month dealie, but the thing is, some people have made very very minor edits in the past month or so, and so they don't get classified as inactive. So pretty much, I think we need to set a deal with the whole inactive/active thing. A few things I believe, is that the edits sound be 2.5/3 of mainspace and .5/3 of any other namespace, if they even make edits to those sections. --[[User:Jäzzi|'Jäzzi']](Talk) 00:43, May 26, 2011 (UTC) :I don't think expecting the mainspace:other ratio to be 5:1 is realistic, considering that many active editors have around a 2:3. -'Isdrak ' 01:21, May 26, 2011 (UTC) :Well being "active" for me in not practical at the moment. Because of my data and time limitations imposed on me this summer, I can't be extremely active. Instead I focus my limited resources on checking and maintaining the Youtube page. While the Youtube channel may not be directly part of the wiki, it is still a big resource towards it and I feel that doing work with is the most efficient way to keep "active" on the wiki for my current situation. I just feel that the edit ratio thing is overboard. There isn't much active on the wiki right now anyway so these "very minor edits" that are keeping some people from not being classified as inactive are fine. It is hard to tell what some people's situation is when it comes to internet access and time constraints are so I think that "active" should just be active and not active*. Yes ideally they would be making more "worth while" edits, but if they have that status then we know that they are capable of better/more edits. That is just my thoughts though. *(Insert legal disclaimer here explaining active in fine print.)--Birdman5589 (talk) 02:32, May 26, 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I can't see the point in quantifying everyone and everything into numbers. It'll just turn editing into a chore both for the editors, and (presumably) whoever is bored enough to keep abreast of every editor's edit tally. People will edit when they want to, and we should be thankful they even bother to do so at all. Doesn't encourage editing in the slightest. --AuronKaizer ' 14:27, May 26, 2011 (UTC) While I think it's annoying that some editors come back only to edit their userpage and don't check up on the community or mainspace a whole lot, what AK says is true...Keeping things in numbers would be quite a bit of a task. The only easy way to do this would be to put the inactive period to one month of no edits, which, honestly, I don't think would be that bad an idea. If someone doesn't edit for an entire month I definitely think that they should be considered inactive; two months might be pushing it just a bit. But yeah, keeping mainspace:other ratios and all that would be quite a bit of a chore and people might get kinda stressed about it so I suggest if we're going to change this we just chop the time in half. -'Minish Link 14:50, May 26, 2011 (UTC) :No, I don't think that this is necessary. Zeldapedia users are basically inactive right now. Some edit more often than others (AK edits a lot still, for example). But if we set some standard, then those who can't edit often might just give up and leave instead of help some. So, to summarize, I'm against this. The 22:41, May 26, 2011 (UTC)